Immigration Watch International (2): UK: Thousands of Afghan refugees to be evicted from Home Office hotels with no offer of housing

Thursday, April 27, 2023

UK: Thousands of Afghan refugees to be evicted from Home Office hotels with no offer of housing

Thousands of Afghan refugees brought to the UK during the Kabul evacuation will be evicted from their Home Office hotels with no offer of housing, the government has revealed.

A Home Office letter, seen by The Independent, has been sent to Afghans living in government hotels telling them that they need to start searching for private rented accommodation as existing support will end from 2 May.

Around 8,000 Afghans are living in hotels in the UK after fleeing the Taliban in August 2021. The government announced plans to evict them in March, saying the refugees would be given a few months’ notice. But initial reports said all refugees would be offered a property to live in.

Now, the Home Office has said that only “some Afghan families will receive one option of housing from the government”. A government factsheet on the changes says: “Most families will not receive an offer of accommodation from the Home Office”.

The letter, sent to Afghans in hotels, continues: “From 2 May 2023, the existing matching process will cease to exist ... It is likely that most people will not receive an allocation through the new process, and we encourage you to find your own accommodation wherever possible”.

The new plan applies to Afghans who have arrived in the UK under two resettlement schemes: the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).

In the letter, the Home Office said it would offer support for refugees to find their own private rentals.

It reads: “We will provide as much support as we can to help you make your own accommodation arrangements. This includes support through the existing Find Your Own Accommodation (FYOA) scheme in the private rental sector.”

Unlike other asylum seekers, Afghans on these two resettlement schemes have the right to work.

However, Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said it was “entirely unreasonable to expect Afghan refugees to suddenly move out of hotels without offering suitable alternatives when the reality is that finding affordable housing on the market is a real challenge”.

He continued: “We are deeply concerned about the approach taken by the Home Office, which is likely to lead to Afghans being left homeless and destitute on our streets.

“This is not how those who fled the Taliban and were promised a warm welcome in the UK should be treated.”

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said: “Although it is right that Afghan families have access to permanent homes, the government must guarantee today that these refugees who have fled danger will not be made homeless.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/afghan-refugees-hotels-eviction-home-office-b2327022.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, April 27, 2023

UK: Thousands of Afghan refugees to be evicted from Home Office hotels with no offer of housing

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors